Communicated on 7 July 2014

SECOND SECTION

Application no . 10839/09 Ebedin ABÄ° against Turkey lodged on 24 December 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ebedin Abi, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1970. He is currently serving a prison sentence in the K ı r ı kkale F-Type Prison.

The circumstances of the case

At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, the applicant had been serving a prison sentence in the Erzurum H-Type Prison (“the prison”) for seven months. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant suffers from diabetes mellitus type-2 and coronary artery disease. He underwent a coronary angioplasty procedure in the past.

According to a medical report issued by the Gaziantep University Hospital on 29 June 2004, the applicant ’ s medical condition required him to follow a special diet.

A more recent report issued by the Atat ü rk University Hospital in Erzurum on 24 July 2008 confirmed the applicant ’ s medical condition and recommended that he maintain a low cholesterol diet rich in white meat, vegetables and liquids and avoid altogether red meat and fat. The report indicated that if a standard menu was offered at the Erzurum H-Type Prison to all inmates without the option of a diet menu, the need for the applicant ’ s transfer to another facility that offered a diet menu would be decided after the review of the standard menu by a dietitian.

On an unspecified date the applicant requested the prison administration to send samples of the food provided at the prison to the Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Inquiry Committee of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey in Ankara for examination, arguing that the standard prison food was not appropriate to his medical condition.

On 24 October 2008 the Disciplinary Board of the prison rejected the applicant ’ s request to send actual food samples to Ankara, arguing that the samples would quickly go bad. It held, however, that it was open to the applicant to send a letter to the relevant authorities detailing his complaints regarding the food provided in the prison.

The applicant ’ s objection to the Disciplinary Board ’ s decision was rejected by the Erzurum Enforcement Judge on 7 November 2008, which decision was upheld by the Erzurum Assize Court on 5 December 2008.

On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged an application with the Erzurum Enforcement Judge and complained of the lack of provision of a special diet at the Erzurum H-Type Prison, which was an indispensable part of his medical treatment, as well as of the problems he encountered in accessing medication.

On 2 January 2009 the Erzurum Enforcement Judge upheld the applicant ’ s complaint. Accordingly, he ordered that the standard menu be examined by a dietitian and that a special diet be provided if the standard menu was found to be unsuitable to the needs of inmates with special dietary needs such as the applicant.

Following an objection by the Erzurum Public Prosecutor on 8 January 2009, the Erzurum Enforcement Judge issued a new decision to the same effect.

On the same date, the Erzurum Public Prosecutor objected to that new decision before the Erzurum Assize Court. The public prosecutor argued that the limited food budget, which was 3 Turkish Liras [1] per day, did not allow the offering of an alternative diet menu at the prison in question. Nevertheless, inmates in the applicant ’ s position were being offered the same menu without salt, oil and spices.

On 9 January 2009 the Erzurum Assize Court upheld the public prosecutor ’ s objection and annulled the earlier decisions of the Erzurum Enforcement Judge dated 2 and 8 January 2009.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the failure of the prison authorities to provide him with a special diet appropriate to his medical condition as prescribed by the doctors caused the deterioration of his health and thus violated his right to life under Article 2 of the Convention.

The applicant further contends that his detention in conditions that aggravated his health problems also violated Article 5 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Was the applicant ’ s health and well-being adequately secured during his detention at the Erzurum H-Type Prison as required by Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant provided with a special diet as recommended by the medical reports issued by the Gaziantep and Atat ü rk University Hospitals? If not,

- did this failure cause the applicant ’ s state of health to deteriorate beyond the natural course of his medical condition?

- did the the domestic authorities take any steps to ascertain whether the food provided at the Erzurum H-Type Prison to inmates with special dietary needs (a modified menu with no oil, salt or spices) was compatible with the applicant ’ s particular medical condition?

The Government are requested to indicate the duration of the applicant ’ s detention at the Erzurum H-Type Prison and to furnish a copy of his medical file, including any dietary recommendations and medications prescribed to the applicant. They are further requested to submit copies of the decisions of the Erzurum Enforcement Judge dated 2 and 8 January 2001 (2009/2 K.), as well as the judgments of the Erzurum Assize Court concerning those decisions. The Government are lastly requested to submit information on the relevant domestic law and practice regarding medical care in prisons, including the availability of special dietary arrangements on health grounds.

[1] 1. Equivalent to approximately 1.45 euros at the material time.